Ant-Man The best way that Marvel can fix this

[Human Torch]

There's no reason to change who Michael Douglas is playing.

If they dumped Wright,there's no reason to keep Douglas as the same character.

 

[The Question]

If they dumped Wright,there's no reason to keep Douglas as the same character.

Except that rewriting the script for that purpose at this stage dramatically increases the likelihood of the movie not being any good.

Also there's no reason not to keep Douglas right where he is.

 

[Human Torch]

Oh, geez. Fans will have a meltdown. Vernon Van Dyne creates Pym particles, becomes a secret superhero in the 60s, retires, and later a down and out highly unscientific Hank Pym comes and steals Van Dyne's work so he can save his daughter (Hankette?) ? Then together, Vernon Van Dyne, the original Ant-Man teams up with Hank Pym, Ant-Man II, to take out the bad guys. This is a 'solution' a more faithful take? Wowza.

Wowza.

That's where the re write people work their magic.

Look,if their so intent on filming To Steal An Ant Man,(Which should've been saved for "Ant Man 3" should they get that far) there's no reason Pym has to be 70 y/o.He wasn't in the original story!Move Douglas to a smaller,yet respectable role (as Vernon Van Dyne,most likely) and you can more or less use the same script as a framework.

 

[Human Torch]

Except that rewriting the script for that purpose at this stage dramatically increases the likelihood of the movie not being any good.

Also there's no reason not to keep Douglas right where he is.

On the contrary,it dramatically increases the likelihood of the movie being very good.

And there is reason.Without Wright,why would they stay beholden to his original intention?

 

[The Question]

On the contrary,it dramatically increases the likelihood of the movie being very good.

How?

And there is reason.Without Wright,why would they stay beholden to his original intention?

That's not a reason to do something.

 

[Shikamaru]

I asked this in another thread, but is there any (narrative) point to even continuing this film?

Is there even a point to continuing this?

Feige stated multiple times the film is only happening because Wright wants it to happen. They marketed this mostly on Wright. They made accommodations within the universe to fit his vision of Ant-Man. Even with a rewrite and new director, the overall product is still bound to be heavily Wright-envisioned, especially when it comes to the story elements (Lang as Ant-Man, Old Man Pym, etc.).

It feels like they're solely continuing this project due to production having already started and not wanting to taint the Marvel image by shelving the film. It comes off like Marvel is continuing a film they have no desire to continue (at least narratively). A mentality that always leads to disaster.

I would scrap the whole thing and introduce Hank and Janet in the Avengers whenever there's room to naturally fit them in. Which could be anywhere from Phase 3 to Phase 2000 at this point. With Wright gone, there's nothing preventing them from doing that now.

 

[Human Torch]

How?



That's not a reason to do something.

We'll have Pym as an actual player in the MCU.Where he always should've been.


Then,they have some kind of obligation to produce Wright's film ...without him?

 

[Human Torch]

I asked this in another thread, but is there any (narrative) point to even continuing this film?

Sad but true.I think at this point,they want to make good all the energy put towards Ant Man.Scrapping it likely means he won't show up until after Dr Strange,Black Panther,etc.

I wouldn't mind postponing it for a solid re write.Rushing it can't be good.But,they seem to already have implemented the changes they wanted.We just don't know what that entails.

 

[The Question]

We'll have Pym as an actual player in the MCU.Where he always should've been.

What does that have to do with the quality of the film?

Then,they have some kind of obligation to produce Wright's film ...without him?

No, but that's not what I said. I said that not having an obligation to film Wright's script isn't a reason that they shouldn't film Wright's script. At most, it means that they now have the option to.

I asked this in another thread, but is there any (narrative) point to even continuing this film?

It depends on wether or not Wright's script is good. If it's a good story, then yeah I think there is.

 

[Keyser Soze]

On the contrary,it dramatically increases the likelihood of the movie being very good.

And there is reason.Without Wright,why would they stay beholden to his original intention?

One reason could be that Marvel Studios likely had no objection to Wright's interpretation of the Ant-Man lore. If they had a severe objection to old man Pym or a focus on Scott Lang, I'm sure they'd have put the kibosh on it way earlier than now. It anything, a focus on Lang could suit Marvel's purposes, since Lang is the current Ant-Man of the comics and has been for a while now. For all we know, Marvel Studios and Feige are equally happy and onboard with the notion of Michael Douglas as Hank Pym and Paul Rudd as Scott Lang as Wright was. The creative differences came much later in the game.

 

[Human Torch]

What does that have to do with the quality of the film?

We'll likely never know what the quality of the film would've been now.So it's kinda a moot point.But the character himself may not be as mishandled now.(depending on what the re writes are)

 

[The Question]

We'll likely never know what the quality of the film would've been now.So it's kinda a moot point.But the character himself may not be as mishandled now.(depending on what the re writes are)

But how does Hank Pym having a more prominent role have anything to do with the quality of the film?

 

[Human Torch]

But how does Hank Pym having a more prominent role have anything to do with the quality of the film?

It looks like we're either gonna go around in circles over this,or I'll have to type a 120 word thesis on why I want Pym as a young man over Lang as Ant Man in the movie.Frankly the prospect of either on a nice Sunday afternoon doesn't appeal to me.

However,I do have to ask everyone disappointed by the news a few questions.Shouldn't Pym be given the courtesy of getting a faithful adaptation,just like Cap,Thor,IM,Hulk...?Does Pym deserve less faithful treatment?If so,why?Is it just because Wright deserves to do whatever he wants with the character?How did he earn that right?Should Marvel let every director have their way with a concept?Is that what we always wanted historically in our CBM?Because I was of the impression faithfulness to the SM was a good thing.

 

[The Question]

It looks like we're either gonna go around in circles over this,or I'll have to type a 120 word thesis on why I want Pym as a young man over Lang as Ant Man in the movie.Frankly the prospect of either on a nice Sunday afternoon doesn't appeal to me.

But that wouldn't have anything to do with my question. I understand it's important to you, my question is how it would by itself produce a higher quality film.

However,I do have to ask everyone disappointed by the news a few questions.Shouldn't Pym be given the courtesy of getting a faithful adaptation,just like Cap,Thor,IM,Hulk...?Does Pym deserve less faithful treatment?If so,why?Is it just because Wright deserves to do whatever he wants with the character?How did he earn that right?Should Marvel let every director have their way with a concept?Is that what we always wanted historically in our CBM?Because I was of the impression faithfulness to the SM was a good thing.

I don't see how casting Hank Pym as older and starting the franchise with Scott Lang as his successor is doing the character a disservice. If it produces a good story that makes good use of the characters involved, that seems like it would be a very respectful treatment of the source material. The fact is that Ant-Man is a legacy character, and there have been long stretches where Pym was retired from superheroing and Lang was the guy in the helmet. What's wrong with focusing on that part of the mythos, especially if it creates a dynamic we have yet to see in a comic book movie?

I don't understand how changing things in an adaptation constitutes a disrespect for the source material. The question shouldn't be what is the most faithful way to adapt these characters. The question should be what is the most interesting and engaging was to tell a new story with this characters that stays true to what they're about. Focusing on the Ant-Man legacy and the relationship between Pym and Lang is one way to do that.

 

[JJ01]

I don't see how casting Hank Pym as older and starting the franchise with Scott Lang as his successor is doing the character a disservice.

Because making him older and having Lang as the star would mean people wouldn't get to see him young, suiting up, interacting with the other Avengers. ''Why would they need Pym, when you have Stark and Banner in the team as the brains?'' And several other excuses. I think everyone should worry about this movie getting done and well done. They should probably put it on hold and wait for a proper script and director. Seems to me Wright didn't like whatever script rewrite Marvel came up with, as someone else posted an article calling the script a ''disaster''. Sounds like Marvel wanted some heavy references to the MCU and possibly character changes.

 

[Human Torch]

Because making him older and having Lang as the star would mean people wouldn't get to see him young, suiting up, interacting with the other Avengers. ''Why would they need Pym, when you have Stark and Banner in the team as the brains?'' And several other excuses. I think everyone should worry about this movie getting done and well done. They should probably put it on hold and wait for a proper script and director. Seems to me Wright didn't like whatever script rewrite Marvel came up with, as someone else posted an article calling the script a ''disaster''. Sounds like Marvel wanted some heavy references to the MCU and possibly character changes.

Bingo.


It's like having a Justice League film where Batman is 83 y/o and saying "Well,Bruce is in the film.He was Batman 30 or 40 years ago.Just cause he's not 30 while Superman,WW & The Flash are doesn't matter."That would never be tolerated.

How can anyone honestly profess to be an Ant Man/Pym fan,and be excepting (much less cheering) the outright shafting he's gotten in the MCU up to this point is beyond me.

 

[The Question]

Because making him older and having Lang as the star would mean people wouldn't get to see him young, suiting up, interacting with the other Avengers.

Okay. So what? Why is that a deal breaker?

''Why would they need Pym, when you have Stark and Banner in the team as the brains?'' And several other excuses. I think everyone should worry about this movie getting done and well done. They should probably put it on hold and wait for a proper script and director. Seems to me Wright didn't like whatever script rewrite Marvel came up with, as someone else posted an article calling the script a ''disaster''. Sounds like Marvel wanted some heavy references to the MCU and possibly character changes.

We don't know what Marvel wanted.

Bingo.


It's like having a Justice League film where Batman is 83 y/o and saying "Well,Bruce is in the film.He was Batman 30 or 40 years ago.Just cause he's not 30 while Superman,WW & The Flash are doesn't matter."That would never be tolerated.

I'd be okay with that.

Although, it's not quite analogous. It would be more like doing a Justice League film without Batman in it, and then making a Batman film set in the same canon where Bruce is old and training Terry McGuinness to be the new Batman.

Which I would be okay with.

How can anyone honestly profess to be an Ant Man/Pym fan,and be excepting (much less cheering) the outright shafting he's gotten in the MCU up to this point is beyond me.

Because I don't see how it's a shafting.

 

[The Question]

Like, my perspective is that it's a much greater honor for Hank Pym to be a key player in an interesting and atypical superhero movie that talks about legacies and the conflicts between older and new generations and what it means to live up to an idea where he gets to play the part of a veteran superhero who predates everyone else in the Marvel Universe except for Captain America by decades than it is for Hank to star in a more tradition superhero film where he's a scientist who gets powers and fights a bad guy. Doing something cool with a character honors them much more than doing something expected.

 

[Human Torch]

I'd be okay with that.

Although, it's not quite analogous. It would be more like doing a Justice League film without Batman in it, and then making a Batman film set in the same canon where Bruce is old and training Terry McGuinness to be the new Batman.

Which I would be okay with.

And it's basically that kind of blind acceptance that gave us gems like Joker killing Batman's parents,30ft Hulk and on and on.

We were supposed to hold the characters to a higher regard these days.At least,Marvel was supposed too.

 

[The Question]

And it's basically that kind of blind acceptance that gave us gems like Joker killing Batman's parents,30ft Hulk and on and on.

That's not blind acceptance. I think that sounds like a really interesting take on the character.

Also, the problem with The Joker killing Bruce's parents isn't that it was different, it's that it was contrived. And what was wrong with The Hulk's size in Ang Lee's film? How does that even make the cut for the list of things that were wrong with that film?

We were supposed to hold the characters to a higher regard these days.At least,Marvel was supposed too.

How does changing things like that disregard the characters?

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I really did want Edgar Wright to do this film. He's in my top 3 favorite directors and I don't care what film it was, I just wanted him to do an MCU film.

At this point, who knows whether this film will be enjoyable. But I'll hold out hope because the Ant-Man character is pretty damn interesting to me.

 

[JJ01]

Okay. So what? Why is that a deal breaker?

We don't know what Marvel wanted.

Because there are people who really wanted to see him portrayed like that? It's not like people desperately want to see Lang. All I see is people complaining over Wright leaving, not such much about this movie's fate. And then we have Pym fans who are quite vocal. What about Lang fans? And yes, we don't really know what Marvel wanted. But if we are to assume, then I could say Marvel wanted this movie to have ties and/or references to other MCU films. Something, I suppose, Wright was against, as he depicted this movie to be its own thing way back then.

 

[The Question]

Because there are people who really wanted to see him portrayed like that? It's not like people desperately want to see Lang. All I see is people complaining over Wright leaving, not such much about this movie's fate. And then we have Pym fans who are quite vocal. What about Lang fans? And yes, we don't really know what Marvel wanted. But if we are to assume, then I could say Marvel wanted this movie to have ties and/or references to other MCU films. Something, I suppose, Wright was against, as he depicted this movie to be its own thing way back then.

There's no basis for that assumption, especially since Wright was around for the whole process of building up the MCU. If that's where the conflict was, I'd think he would have walked a loooong time ago.

And you didn't really answer my question. I know that's what people want. If they didn't want it I would have asked. But why is that so important?

 

[Mike Murdock]

I asked this in another thread, but is there any (narrative) point to even continuing this film?

I'm not sure what you mean by "narrative" point. Certainly, one reason is there will literally be one less movie in Phase 3 otherwise since there isn't time to advance another movie up.

Another reason is that the goal is to have each Marvel movie do something different. Cap2 was a political thriller. Guardians of the Galaxy is supposed to be a space opera. Ant-Man is supposed to be a heist movie. I think that sounds fun and I doubt they're going to change that entirely.

But how does Hank Pym having a more prominent role have anything to do with the quality of the film?

His dispute is about creative decisions, not writing quality. I agree with you completely that faithfulness to the comics isn't a determiner of whether a movie is good, the story is. It's possible to be faithful and really good (or bad) or unfaithful and really good (or really bad). I thought the change to the Mandarin in Iron Man 3 worked thematically very well (and Ben Kingsley nailed the part) regardless of how different it was from the comic character. On the other hand, Spider-Man 3 wasn't very good and I don't think the changes were the determining factor. But I'm sticking my neck out defending Iron Man 3. Plenty of people think the change to Mandarin made or broke that film regardless of everything else in the movie.

Because making him older and having Lang as the star would mean people wouldn't get to see him young, suiting up, interacting with the other Avengers. ''Why would they need Pym, when you have Stark and Banner in the team as the brains?'' And several other excuses.

While I understand your point to some degree, I'm not sure I follow the final point. To me, having Hank Pym as a contemporary to Stark and Banner raises that exact concern. As a person, he's somewhat redundant. As an ability or superhero, Lang fills in just as well. To me, having an older Hank Pym opens up a world of possibilities. It allows for more period pieces with a young Hank Pym. He can appear in one-shots, flashback episodes of TV shows, or even prequel movies. By placing him in the 1960s, he's an equal or better of Howard Stark (certainly, those two are very different as Pym is more a tinkerer than Howard, but not more of one than Tony) as opposed to one of three with Tony and Bruce.

That being said, there is one missed opportunity I fear that rises because of an old Pym. To me, I think the desire would be to have Wasp in Avengers. That means, Janet would likely be a contemporary (or romantic interest) of Lang. I do think the Hank-Janet dynamic is one that can be interesting to portray on screen and it would be a shame to lose out on that.

 

[The Question]

His dispute is about creative decisions, not writing quality. I agree with you completely that faithfulness to the comics isn't a determiner of whether a movie is good, the story is. It's possible to be faithful and really good (or bad) or unfaithful and really good (or really bad). I thought the change to the Mandarin in Iron Man 3 worked thematically very well (and Ben Kingsley nailed the part) regardless of how different it was from the comic character. On the other hand, Spider-Man 3 wasn't very good and I don't think the changes were the determining factor. But I'm sticking my neck out defending Iron Man 3. Plenty of people think the change to Mandarin made or broke that film regardless of everything else in the movie.

I get that. But he was the one who said that de-aging Pym and shifting the focus to him would greatly increase the changes of a quality film, and I was pressing on that.

Also, slight derailment I know, but on the issue of The Mandarin: The thing about the change they made to The Mandarin which I will say again and again is that Ben Kingsley did not play The Mandarin. Guy Pierce was playing The Mandarin. He even said so during the climax. Kingsley played his decoy.